Of course, while claims that Obama is persecuting Christians are completely manufactured by conservatives, there is ample evidence that Putin-sponsored forces in eastern Ukraine are violently persecuting evangelical and Ukrainian Orthodox Christians. The New York Times reports:

Embracing Orthodox Christianity as a force to unite these now divided Slavic lands and also their own fractured movement, the rebels, fortified recently by an influx of weapons and soldiers from Russia, used their period in power here purging Slovyansk of rival Christian denominations.

…

Among their principal targets were Christians defiant of the Moscow church’s claims of religious primacy and suspected of connections with the West.

“Their logic is simple: You are an American church and America is our enemy so we have to kill you,” said Mr. Dudnik, the evangelical pastor. No one at his center had been killed, he said but added that the rebels had murdered four evangelical Christians from another Slovyansk church.

Grabbed by pro-Russian gunmen in June after a Pentecost service at the Divine Transfiguration Church, all four victims were taken away for interrogation and were later found dead in a burned-out car.

While inventing never-ending conspiracy theories about Obama’s supposed crackdown on Christianity, Religious Right leaders don’t appear to mind the real attacks on Christians happening in Russia, under the watch of a leader who they see as an ally in the fight to turn back gay rights and reproductive freedom.

In her radio address yesterday, Phyllis Schlafly took on the issue of domestic violence and sexual assault, which she said could be eliminated if women would just get married instead of focusing so much on their careers.

Noting that “marriage settles men down,” Schlafly asked, “So what’s the answer for women who worry about male violence? It’s not to fear all men. It’s to reject the lifestyle of frequent 'hookups,' which is so much promoted on college campuses today, while the women pursue a career and avoid marriage.”

We all know that married men can still be violent to their families, but they are far less likely to be violent against women than are live-in boyfriends.

Why is this? It’s true that women who have found men who are already better partners are more likely to marry them, but it’s also true that marriage settles men down. Being married makes a man care more about his family’s expectations and future because he sees his family as enduring. It also makes him more faithful and committed to his partner. Marriage makes men directly protective of their wives, and living in a home with their daughters gives them the opportunity to be directly protective of them as well. Marriage also creates indirect protection for wives and daughters, because married women and their children tend to live in safer neighborhoods.

So what’s the answer for women who worry about male violence? It’s not to fear all men. It’s to reject the lifestyle of frequent “hookups,” which is so much promoted on college campuses today, while the women pursue a career and avoid marriage.

On Saturday, Phyllis Schlafly hosted a very special 25th anniversary edition of “Eagle Forum Live,” in which she received laudatory messages from a number of fans, including Iowa Republican congressman Steve King.

King called in to congratulate Schlafly on her organization’s “wonderful success” and to tell her that he carries “in my jacket pocket every day” a copy of her 1964 book “A Choice Not An Echo”…right next to his Bible.

Schlafly returned the praise, saying, “We try to get good people like Steve King situated in Congress, where they can keep us faithful to the Constitution.”

Citizens for Community Values is holding "Four Days of Prayer for Marriage" before the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals hears arguments against Ohio's gay marriage ban.

David Wasserman says Lenar Whitney is "the most frightening candidate I’ve met in seven years interviewing congressional hopefuls."

Finally, Phyllis Schlafly longs for the good old days when we "used to teach women to be smart and not go alone to a man’s bedroom, especially if she has had too much to drink" unlike today "where mixed signals confuse men into sex that a woman can later call assault."

“We the People,” hosted by the group’s spokesmen Jerry Newcombe and John Rabe, convenes right-wing activists like Phyllis Schlafly, David Limbaugh and Herb Titus for a collective hand-wringing over the rulings of judges who have “turned the First Amendment on its head” and obstructed religious liberties in support of their own political causes.

The group especially lambasts the federal judiciary for “casting off constitutional limitations” and “imposing its will on the other branches, and even you and me individually” with its rulings on marriage equality and abortion rights.

Rabe lashed out at the courts’ “harmful agenda” when it “attacked two thousand years of traditional marriage” by striking down voter-approved marriage bans like Proposition 8.

In the spirit of defending the rights of the “majority,” Phyllis Schlafly paints a grim scenario of judicial tyranny usurping American values:

We have judges who have created new rights, who have knocked down laws and practices that have been part of our heritage since the beginning, and you can call the roll of what they’ve done: tried to throw up traditional marriage between a man and a woman; throwing out the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag because it has the words ‘under God’ in it; creating new rights that are not in the Constitution, like the right to abortion, the right to sodomy, the right to same-sex marriage licenses, the right to have pornography even with taxpayer’s money. You know these are not in the Constitution, and it is an offense against the American people, against We the People, and against our whole form of government. And the result is that the First Amendment has been turned on its head.

And herein lies the ultimate goals of these activist judges: to abolish expressions of patriotism and ensure taxpayer-funded pornography for all.

Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly is boasting of the Republican Party’s opposition to gay rights, which she says is proof that marriage equality is not “the wave of the future.”

On her Wednesday radio bulletin, Schlafly claimed that the Republican National Committee didn’t select Las Vegas to host its convention as “punishment” for the state party’s decision to drop anti-gay, anti-choice language from its platform. She added that she is optimistic that the party will recruit and elect “candidates who will defend marriage and not be swept along in the gay tide.”

If you get your news from the mainstream media, you may believe that the adoption of gay marriage is the wave of the future, that its momentum is so strong that it is unbeatable. But not so fast. That may not be true at all. All this so-called momentum is created by supremacist judges who are trying to impose their left-wing bias even on states where the voters have passed a referendum putting only traditional husband-wife marriage into their state constitution. Unfortunately, we are stuck with some supremacist judges who claim we have a "living" Constitution and pretend that they can rewrite our laws and even our Constitution. This marriage issue will probably go to the U.S. Supreme Court in about a year, and we don't know how the Court will rule.

Let's first look at the so-called momentum to abolish marriage as we have known it for centuries and what the public opinion polls tell us. A new poll by Wilson Research Strategies surveyed Republicans and Republican-leading Independents and found that 82% agree that marriage should be defined only as a union between "one man and one woman." It also found that 75% disagreed that "politicians should support the redefinition of marriage to include same-sex couples."

The Republican National Platform adopted in Tampa in 2012 says: “We reaffirm our support for a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.”

After Nevada Republicans dropped traditional marriage from their state platform, the Republican Party promptly punished Nevada by rejecting Las Vegas as a site for the 2016 Republican National Convention. It is unfortunate if marriage becomes a political issue between Republicans and Democrats, but it does look as if politics is going that way. We are looking for candidates who will defend marriage and not be swept along in the gay tide.

Truth in Action Ministries, a purveyor of incendiary “documentaries” that explore our country’s apparent slide into anti-Christianmoralturpitude, is back to warn us that Christians are now an increasingly persecuted minority in America.

Hosted by conservative activists Jerry Newcombe and John Rabe, the group’s most recent film, “We the People: Under Attack,” is a field guide to how “activist judges” are restricting religious liberties and the freedom of speech, and includes appearances from right-wing figures such as Herb Titus, Phyllis Schlafly, Carrie Severino and Alan Sears.

The subject of scorn in “We the People” is the federal judiciary, seen as a rogue branch of government with a revisionist interpretation of the Constitution. Newcombe warns that “our country is under attack by activist judges, including some on our nation’s Supreme Court.”

The separation of church and state is framed as both a slap in the face to Christians and a subversion of the will of our Founding Fathers, and Titus laments that the U.S. government doesn’t strictly adhere to the Ten Commandments and the Bible in its public policy. Rabe breathlessly reports that “in recent decades, the federal judiciary has instituted abortion on demand, overturned limits on partial-birth abortion, silenced voluntary prayer in schools and discovered a so-called ‘right to sodomy’ in the constitution.”

Newcombe argues that recent decisions by the Supreme Court defy the Constitution’s purportedly religious themes, and relays this quote by Thomas Jefferson to prove that even he believed in mixing religion with government:

No nation has ever yet existed or been governed without religion. Nor can be. The Christian religion is the best religion that has been given to man, and I as chief magistrate of this nation am bound to give it the sanction of my example.

One slight caveat, however: this quote appears absolutely nowhere in any of Jefferson’s writings or records of his speeches, and first materialized in 1857, decades after Jefferson died. Looks like Newcombe will have to find more fake quotes from the nation’s founders to prove his point.

Piccalo interviews Americans for Legal Immigration’s William Gheen, who it turns out also takes a Christian nationalist view of his opposition to immigration reform. Gheen conveniently escapes any theological difficulty when it comes to dealing with the thousands of Central American child refugees on the southern border by claiming that the violence they are escaping is a hoax:

"Illegal immigration is the antithesis of Christianity,” says William Gheen, Raleigh, N.C.-based president of Americans For Legal Immigration. “It’s a gross mischaracterization of Christianity to apply it to tolerating the mass lawlessness, death and damages involved in illegal immigration.”

…

When asked about those children crossing the border in search of refuge from gang-related violence and death, Americans for Legal Immigration president Gheen said immigrant children are coached by money-hungry smugglers who give them “cheat sheets” with fabricated stories of woe, crafted to ensure their amnesty. “There’s no mass slaughter of children in any of the host countries,” Gheen said. “There’s no documentation of any mass slaughter...The children are reciting lines. This is being orchestrated.”

Gheen sounded the same note in an interview Tuesday with VCY America, linking immigration reform proponents with the “anti-Christ culture flooding up through the united states in our movies, in the TV shows, in the minds of people where they hate Duck Dynasty or anything associated with Christians.”

He said that immigrants’ rights groups are anti-Christian because “they don’t like laws, they don’t like borders”: “They like to equate Christians with Nazis and Klansmen and all sorts of stuff like that because Christians try to show any type of restraint on behavior. And they don’t want any restraint on any behaviors, whether it’s criminal or not. They don’t like laws, they don’t like borders. It’s anything goes, people do whatever they want.”

This week, the Center for Immigration Studies — the “think tank” of the anti-immigrant movement — released yet another document meant to feed the opposition to immigration reform, this one alleging that “all employment growth since 2000 went to immigrants.”

CIS’s report has been promoted across conservative media and by fellow anti-immigrant activists like Phyllis Schlafly.

But, just like the group’s recent report alleging that the Obama administration had released tens of thousands of criminal undocumented immigrants, this one doesn’t hold up to the smallest amount of scrutiny.

To begin with, the number of native-born Americans working in 2014 has not declined since 2000. It has increased by 2.6 million. The authors of the report acknowledge as much in an endnote. It is only by excluding the record-high cohort of workers 65 and older, one of the fastest-growing age groups in the labor market, that Camarota and Ziegler can claim that immigrants are taking all the available new jobs. But it is just as plausible to blame the long-term stagnation in the employment of “working-age” American natives on older employees as on those born in other lands. Should senior citizens who wish to work be forced to retire at 65?

In the zero-sum world of the anti-immigrant advocates, foreign-born workers can only gain at the expense of the native-born. But in the real world, immigration generally enlarges the economy, boosts productivity, and adds jobs. Immigrants amount to less than 13 percent of the US population. Yet 28 percent of all new American companies launched in 2011, as Rupert Murdoch wrote in a Wall Street Journal essay last month, were founded by immigrants.

Broadly speaking, immigrant workers and US-born workers are not substitutes but complements; because they tend to have different skills, they generally don’t compete for the same jobs. Immigrants are more likely to be employed at the high or low ends of the labor market, explains Alex Nowrasteh of the Cato Institute, while most Americans have skills in the middle. Supplying the immigrant skills needed by the economy simultaneously enlarges demand for native skills.

Restrictionists hint at some kind of inverse correlation between gains in employment for US-born and foreign-born workers, but they can’t show what doesn’t exist. Look past their tendentious presentation of the data, as Nowrasteh wrote about an earlier Center for Immigration Studies report, and you notice that for the most part “net gains in employment for natives and immigrants move in the same direction.” When natives gain, immigrants gain, and vice versa. We all work in the same labor market.

The fundamental flaws in the CIS report are similar to those in the infamous and widely panned Heritage Foundation study that produced a wildly inflated figure for the “cost” of immigration reform based on the assumption that immigrants wouldn’t be productive or expand the economy. (An assumption that itself was likely linked to one of its author’s racist views on intelligence).

The Human Rights Campaign released a report today to mark the first anniversary of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s signing of his infamous ban on “gay propaganda” and related anti-LGBT legislation. HRC reports “an uptick in violent attacks on LGBT people” since the bills’ passage that has accompanied a spike in “anti-LGBT sentiment” in the public square.

The issue has been divisive on the Right. For instance, Accuracy in Media’s Cliff Kincaid — hardly a fan of gay people — got into a memorable shouting match earlier this year with World Congress of Families representatives, who he accused of cozying up to Putin.

Self-proclaimed civility champion Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel claims LGBT rights supporters are doing “the bidding of the Devil” and waging a “spiritual assault on all of us who are made in the image of God.”

Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly is pretty sure that climate change is a “conspiracy” manufactured by scientists hoping to crash the U.S. economy.

Larry Klayman has some helpful advice regarding the Washington Redskins name controversy: “Obama surely knows best about offending a sizable group of people. Maybe he should change his middle name, Hussein, since it dredges up memories of Saddam Hussein, among other thoughts.”

In her radio address this week, Schlafly laments that it “certainly was a shock when the president of Russia lectured Americans that we are ‘becoming godless.’”

“Russians are warming up to religious freedom just as Americans are rejecting it,” she warns, claiming that “that the atheists are trying to censor all mention of religion out of every public place and event.”

It certainly was a shock when the president of Russia lectured Americans that we are “becoming godless.” In his last “state of the nation” speech, Vladimir Putin told Russia that the United States was moving away from Christian values. Back in the 1980’s, Ronald Reagan was making similar comments about Russia!

So is the United States still one nation under God? In a recent article, Dr. Ben Carson says yes. Americans still live in a culture that operates under many of Christianity’s basic assumptions about life. But with increasing numbers of Americans becoming reluctant to mention God in public, we are in danger of forgetting our roots and discarding our rights. The liberals are trying to use the 1st Amendment as a weapon to silence religious speech. But to whom is the 1st Amendment directed? It says “Congress shall make no law.” The 1st Amendment binds the hands of Congress: it doesn’t restrict the rest of us.

...

So if Russians are warming up to religious freedom just as Americans are rejecting it, what does this mean for the United States? It’s clear that the atheists are trying to censor all mention of religion out of every public place and event. If we do nothing, if we allow the atheists to eliminate God from our culture, we will be rejecting the principles that made our nation so great. But if we embrace our heritage, the principles that launched America will guide us strong into the future.

The House voted 383-33 last night to move forward with a plan to build a National Women’s History Museum on the Mall, despite an effort by Religious Right groups to prevent the museum from going forward.

Now, we learn that Concerned Women for America's Penny Nance, the activist leading the fight against the museum, was offered a spot on its planning board but refused to participate unless an anti-feminist activist like herself was allowed to head the planning effort.

The Daily Caller reports that in an effort to shore up support for a bill authorizing a planning study for the museum, the museum’s chief Republican supporter, Rep. Marsha Blackburn, offered Nance a spot on the museum’s board. Nance refused, saying that she would only accept an offer to lead the museum as the board’s chair or to pick another right-wing activist for the job.

“Regardless of that effort some critics of this legislation have, incorrectly, said that the bill would create a museum that would portray women as monolithic in their views on abortion as well as other issues of concern to women,” said Blackburn, adding that she asked Nance to serve as a member of the commission.

Nance said that the offer — sent by Blackburn’s chief of staff on Tuesday night — is “an exercise in futility and frustration without the chairman being someone who at least is impartial on our views.”

“One seat would not change anything,” said Nance, adding “I am happy to either serve or find someone else to serve as chairman.”

Religious Right groups came out against the plan because, they said, it would place too much emphases on women who had fought for women’s rights. CWA complained that the museum would “indoctrinate” visitors into “a jaundiced view of women’s history” because the museum’s website mentioned pioneering abortion rights advocates but didn’t mention CWA’s founder Beverly LaHaye or fringe right-wing activist Star Parker.

Eagle Forum urged its members to oppose the creation of the museum, saying, “Long sought by feminists, this project would enshrine their warped view of American history on the National Mall” and added that the museum wasn’t needed anyway: “Women's history is American history, and there is already a National Museum of American History on the Mall.”

The Family Research Council warned that the museum would become “a permanent monument to radical feminism and abortion.”

Writing for RedState, David Horowitz called the museum proposal an “interesting endeavor,” but warned that it would “promote leftwing propaganda”:

One of the biggest obstacles to restoring our constitutional Republic is the inherent advantage the progressives enjoy inside of our culture. Their monopoly on media, entertainment, and education has given radicals the opportunity to slowly, yet relentlessly, introduce extreme ideas into the mainstream with a high degree of success. The least we can do as conservatives is not use our majority to gratuitously grant the feminist movement more leverage to promote leftwing propaganda in our nation’s capitol under the guise of celebrating famous women.

In the end, yesterday, activists were only able to persuade 33 Republican House members to vote against a bill that “authorizes a study to find a location for the museum and establish its mission.” Only two of the eighteen Republican women in the House voted against the bill – Rep. Michele Bachmann, who said it would “enshrine the radical feminist movement” and Rep. Vicky Hartzler.

But despite her attempted concession to Nance, Blackburn told National Journal that she could not figure out what all the fuss was about: "Look, I'm a pretty conservative person. I can't even follow that train of thought. It's too convoluted for me."

Rob Schenck of Faith and Action calls upon Sarah Palin to retract her comments about waterboarding: "I admonish you in the name of the Lord to retract your comments about waterboarding and baptism and clarify what you were doing and trying to say."

Glenn Beck has released a new book about Common Core and he is telling people to buy a copy and rip the cover off and give it to their friends who will refuse to read it if they know that Beck wrote it.

Speaking of Common Core, a respected Republican pollster is warning candidates not to run for office by opposing it.

Tony Perkins says "one look at the headlines and we can all agree: If there's one thing this country could use more of, it's prayer!" I am pretty sure that we don't all agree on that.

Phyllis Schlafly seems to think that the short-term Democrat strategy is to get the unmarried women to vote while the long-term strategy is to push policies what will increase the population of unmarried women.

Finally, you can't argue with Bryan Fischer's logic: "The death penalty for cold-blooded murder was right in the days of Noah and it is right today."

Right-wing pundit and Fox News contributor Mallory Factor joined Phyllis Schlafly on Eagle Forum Live this weekend to discuss his new book on the history of the conservative movement, to which Schlafly contributed a chapter.

When a listener asked whether conservatives are winning or losing “our culture,” Factor replied that “we’re losing because government has grown so big and government has built up people’s dependency” to the extent that “they put aside their values” and “they even put aside God.”

This reminded Schlafly of the Obama campaign’s Life of Julia ad, which charted the importance of a number of federal programs for an average American woman as she moves through her education and career, building a family and retirement. “This woman lived her whole life from birth to Social Security and having a baby and everything, and the government is the only factor in her life,” despaired Schlafly. “She doesn’t have a husband.”

“And because of that, she probably puts aside some of the cultural beliefs that are so necessary for a good and productive life,” Factor added.

Schlafly: Here’s a question that came in over the email. Do you think that conservative ideas are getting stronger or weaker in our culture? In other words, are we winning or are we losing? Or maybe I don’t want to hear the answer to that question!

Factor: I think that we’re losing. And we’re losing because government has grown so big and government has built up people’s dependency upon it that they put aside almost everything else. They put aside their values, they even put aside God for government because they are so dependent upon it. And we do this more and more and more.

Schlafly: Well, that was really the point of Obama’s little TV spot, ‘The Life of Julia’ that he put on before the election, where this woman lived her whole life from birth to Social Security and having a baby and everything, and the government is the only factor in her life. She doesn’t have a husband.

Factor: And because of that, she probably puts aside some of the cultural beliefs that are so necessary for a good and productive life.

Most of Schlafly’s argument is summed up in a section called “Definition of ‘Politically Correct,’” which goes after multiculturalism, which she defines as “the false notion that Western Civilization is bad and every other group, whether civilized or not, is superior,” the notion that “having sex with anybody, anytime, is OK” and the practice of using B.C.E and C.E for dates, rather than B.C. and A.D.

Definition of 'Politically Correct'

The prevailing environment on most college campuses is what is called Political Correctness — in faculty bias, course content, visiting speakers, and organizations and events funded by student fees. Here are the principal tenets of the campus dogma known as Political Correctness:

1. Everything is political. All academic subjects must be seen through the prism of gender and race oppression, including history, literature, social relationships, and even private conversation. Most students encounter this immediately in their freshman English class. The writings of the DWEMs (Dead White European Males) have been censored out and replaced with Oppression Studies: writings by third-rate authors who whine about America’s oppressive society.

2. Victimology. Every group is entitled to claim minority status as victims except white males and Christians.

3. Multiculturalism. That’s a code word for the false notion that Western Civilization is bad and every other group, whether civilized or not, is superior.

4. Radical feminism. The entire world must be seen as one big conspiracy against women, and all men are guilty, both individually and as a group. Joking about this doctrine is not permitted; several colleges have even banned jokes. At Arizona State University, drama professor Jared Sakren was fired for producing Shakespeare’s Taming of the Shrew; Shakespeare is not Politically Correct.

5. Affirmative action. Reverse discrimination in admissions, grading, and employment for groups that proclaim their status as “victims” is not only mandatory, it is non-debatable.

6. Having sex with anybody, anytime, is OK and may not be criticized. Dating is out; “hooking up” is in. The social acceptance of pre-marital and homosexual sex and activism is non-debatable.

7. Tolerance. That’s a code word meaning tolerance for Politically Correct views, but not for the Politically Incorrect. Tolerance requires conformity to P.C. views, and hundreds of colleges have speech codes.

8. Christianity is Politically Incorrect. In some colleges, students are not permitted to turn in papers that identify historic dates as B.C. (Before Christ) or A.D. (Anno Domini), but must use B.C.E. (Before the Common Era) and C.E. (Common Era).

In a section titled “Feminist Propaganda In Textbooks,” Schlafly analyzes a women's and gender studies textbook she came across, which she asserts is “anti-marriage, anti-homemaker, pro-abortion, and pro-lesbian.”

The authors teach that the roles of male and female are merely learned behaviors and you can change to the other gender if you want to. Bisexuality and trans-sexuality are presented as normal. The textbook includes personal stories of adults who changed their gender. The book explains that heterosexuality exists only because of socially imposed stereotypes and homophobia, and has nothing to do with nature or morality. Students are encouraged to organize a National Coming Out Day on their campus.

A couple of articles in this textbook discuss that it is common for women to be bisexual. Of course, the book endorses abortion. The traditional model of the family is presented as only one of many forms of family. The book teaches that married women should be liberated from marriage and turn their children over to the state to be raised. This college textbook has a radical feminist political agenda: anti-marriage, anti-homemaker, pro-abortion, and pro-lesbian. College students should not waste their tuition dollars taking women’s studies courses.

In a section on diversity, Schlafly criticizes colleges for promoting the “offbeat concepts” of multiculturalism, which she insists is “just another college fad to put down Western civilization.”

It’s important for students to know before they go to college that diversity doesn’t mean allowing conservatives to speak on campus, either as visiting lecturers or professors, except for occasional tokenism. Diversity on college campuses doesn’t mean giving fair coverage to the ideas and achievements of Western civilization, but it does mean featuring a lot of offbeat concepts. It’s important for students to know that multiculturalism doesn’t mean tolerance and respect for all cultures. It’s just another college fad to put down Western civilization.

Schlafly, citing sexual assault prevention policies, concludes that “college is a dangerous place for men.”

Speaking with Phyllis Schlafly on Eagle Forum Live this weekend, Iowa talk show host Steve Deace implied that same-sex couples who want to get married are like people who want to be able to fly.

Responding to a caller who asked what he should say to a friend who says “it’s not government’s job to legislate morality,” Deace responded that the friend has “bought into some postmodern thinking” where he doesn’t want to impose his idea of what’s “wrong and icky” on other people.

Deace compared this to fighting the law of gravity, implying that a gay person who wants to get married is like someone who jumps off a skyscraper because they think they can fly.

“I mean, someone might think, I have the right to fly and I’d love to fly and I have a desire to fly and I even found a judge that gave me a piece of paper that told me I have the right to fly,” he said. “But when I fling myself off the top of a skyscraper, I run smack-dab into the law of gravity.”

“It didn’t change because some judge said so,” he added.

Caller: I’ve got a buddy who’s semi-liberal and he says, his main premise is that it’s not government’s job to legislate morality. And I was wondering what you’ve got to say about that.

Schlafly: Well, practically ever law is legislating morality.

Deace: Phyllis is correct. Everything is morality. That’s a false objection. Question him further to find exactly out what that means. And I’m telling you, what I’m 99 percent positive that it will mean is that he’s bought into some postmodern thinking that says, ‘Well, yeah, I think this stuff is wrong and icky for me but I can’t impose my value system on somebody else.’

But of course, that’s a very slippery slope as well. I mean, someone might think, I have the right to fly and I’d love to fly and I have a desire to fly and I even found a judge that gave me a piece of paper that told me I have the right to fly. But when I fling myself off the top of a skyscraper, I run smack-dab into the law of gravity. It didn’t change because some judge said so. It still exists. So, chances are that’s a false objection from your friend because he’s bought into some postmodern thinking about over-judgementalism.

Last year, we reported that VDARE writer John Derbyshire (formerly of the National Review) was annoyed that prominent Republicans were failing to credit racist VDARE writer Steve Sailer when they advocated a plan nearly identical to the ‘Sailer Strategy’: that is, the idea that the GOP can only survive by solidifying and growing its white base while alienating people of color. Sailer had been persistently advocating this tactic for over a decade when it suddenly came into vogue among conservatives who opposed the Gang of Eight’s immigration reform plan.

Now, another VDARE writer is upset that more and more immigration reform opponents are pushing another VDARE argument without giving the white nationalists credit. This time, the argument is that steady or increased legal immigration – with or without a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrations – will ruin the Republican party because immigrants are inherently liberal.

In a post on Friday, VDARE writer James Fulford highlights a recent study from the Center for Immigration Studies which argues that Republicans shouldn’t bother with immigration reform because immigrants will inevitably vote for Democrats. Fulford complains that neither the CIS report nor the conservative outlets covering it “manages to credit Peter Brimelow or VDARE.com for saying all this early and often, possibly because it they're scared of Media Matters and the SPLC.” As he notes, VDARE has been pushing the argument since as earlyas 2001.

It’s no surprise that this idea originated in the racist underworld of VDARE. After all, the subtext of the argument is that the GOP should rely on what Pat Buchanan called a new “Southern Strategy” and dump any plans to expand its appeal beyond its mostly white base. As the “Southern Strategy” comparison makes clear, that involves both scapegoating immigrants and ignoring their voices in government.

Given this sort of outlook, it is not surprising that Schlafly opposes things like the Paycheck Fairness Act and efforts to close the gender pay gap, arguing in an op-ed published in The Christian Post that closing the pay gap will actually harm women.

As Schlafly sees it, women want to marry a man who makes more money than they do. As such, if women and men make the same amount, then women will be less likely to get married because they will be "unable to find what they regard as a suitable mate."

The solution, obviously, is to increase the pay gap so that men will earn more than women so that women, in turn, will have a better opportunity to find husbands:

Another fact is the influence of hypergamy, which means that women typically choose a mate (husband or boyfriend) who earns more than she does. Men don't have the same preference for a higher-earning mate.

While women prefer to HAVE a higher-earning partner, men generally prefer to BE the higher-earning partner in a relationship. This simple but profound difference between the sexes has powerful consequences for the so-called pay gap.

Suppose the pay gap between men and women were magically eliminated. If that happened, simple arithmetic suggests that half of women would be unable to find what they regard as a suitable mate.

Obviously, I'm not saying women won't date or marry a lower-earning men, only that they probably prefer not to. If a higher-earning man is not available, many women are more likely not to marry at all.

...

The best way to improve economic prospects for women is to improve job prospects for the men in their lives, even if that means increasing the so-called pay gap.

The Republican National Committee is currently in the process of selecting the location for the 2016 national convention and among the cities in the running is Las Vegas, Nevada.

That, of course, is not sitting well with Religious Right activists who have now dashed off a letter to RNC Chairman Reince Priebus warning him that the RNC had better choose a different place to hold the convention:

The leaders sent a letter last week to Republican chairman Reince Priebus, putting him on notice that picking Vegas would generate friction. They call the city a “trap waiting to ensnare. … What could go wrong? The answer is obvious.”

Leaders from the religious right who have joined the effort include Tim Wildmon, president of the American Family Association; Phyllis Schlafly, founder of Eagle Forum; Andrea Lafferty, president of the Traditional Values Coalition; Paul Caprio, director of Family-PAC; and James Dobson, president of Family Talk ministry.

“The GOP is supposedly interested in reaching out to conservatives and evangelicals. Maybe that’s just a front, but if they really mean it this is not the way to do it,” Dobson said Tuesday. “Even though Vegas has tried to shore itself up and call itself family-friendly, it’s still a metaphor for decadence. There’s still 64 pages of escort services in the yellow pages. … You can’t have it both ways.”

“In spite of ‘family-friendly’ outreach in the past decade, Las Vegas remains a metaphor for all things decadent. And looking at the yellow pages, one can see that it still delivers. With 64 pages of escort services and countless gambling casinos, it remains a trap waiting to ensnare.”

“At a time when the base needs to be motivated, this is no time to mute or offend them in any way. It may seem strange, silly even to some that conservatives would object to something that COULD be so innocuous. Surely there are shows and great restaurants and beautiful hotels. … What could possible go wrong? The answer is obvious, and wisdom dictates the chance not be taken.”

“There are several wonderful venues being considered. We are not advocating for any of them. But we urge you to reject Las Vegas and celebrate the vibrancy and strength of the Republican Party in a place not at odds with its values.”